Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 105 (AP)

K. B. Hobia Naik v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-01-06

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2023
JUDGMENT Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. - Heard Sri Kakarla Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned standing counsel, representing respondent No.3. 2. Notice has been accepted by the learned AGP for Municipal Administration, representing respondents No.1 & 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent-Ekalavya Sankshema Sangam is raising huge Arch on the public passage just in front of the petitioner's house, stopping the free lighting and free air to his house, consequently, he filed this petition for a direction to respondents No.2 & 3 to take action against the 4th respondent to stop such construction. 4. On 04.01.2023 Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned standing counsel, representing respondent No.3, as also the learned GP for respondents No.1 & 2, were granted time to obtain instructions. 5. Today, based on the written instructions, learned counsels for the respondents 1 to 3, submit that the Arch at the place in question, was already there for the last more than 30 years, and presently only the repairs are going on. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission based on the instructions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the Arch was not so big and it is a small Arch but the same is being raised to different height. 7. This Court is of the view that if the height of the existing Arch is being increased or not by undertaking repairs, stopping the light and air to the petitioner's house or not, all these questions being disputed here cannot be effectively considered, at the first instance, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner's grievance appears to be with respect to the alleged easementary right against the unofficial 4th respondent, for which the writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. 8. Leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to such other remedy, as may be available under law, if so advised, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.